User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 9:20:26 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Off loading the Core stage from the Pegasus barge now. Looks like more work coming your way 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 10:02:06 AM EDT
[#2]
Every space entity compared to SpaceX is like chimps flinging poo vs H. Sapiens building early cities.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 10:15:53 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I still think that we are going to need more powerful engines before we can colonize the moon.  We have engines that can get there in a few days. How much faster do you think is needed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 10:26:08 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1386794155653926917?s=20 I don't know how to do the Twitter thing. Pegasus barge should be coming in today. Maybe @Dagger41 will see it if he's hanging out at the port. https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1386995787251474432?s=20 Yeah I went to the East side of the lock (real good spot) and watched them park Pegasus in the 2nd basin. Too far away to get decent pics and they were farting around with it getting turned around. Waited around for a bit , got bored and left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 10:27:41 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Off loading the Core stage from the Pegasus barge now. Going vertical in the VAB today ? (I understand that's the plan) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 11:10:21 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Every space entity compared to SpaceX is like chimps flinging poo vs H. Sapiens building early cities. I should hope I've established myself as a pretty serious critic of the old space establishment by now. But ouch! That's a bit harsh.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2021 11:14:39 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Going vertical in the VAB today ? (I understand that's the plan) It's going to be a in the transfer isle for a while. A lot of work to do still before it goes up and over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2021 12:58:45 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I should hope I've established myself as a pretty serious critic of the old space establishment by now. But ouch! That's a bit harsh. no no. hes got a point. No one can touch spacex's value. the issue is starship will not be human rated for a while and spacex wont really be developing any other capability for a while. SLS as a human rated Super Heavy is going to be a capability that we havent had for like 45 years. SLS will literally have value to launch interplanetary ORION and will be a monopoly for a while. So i believe SLS is valuable until its capability are repeated by like literally anyone. IF i was blue origin i would be making a ORION knockoff ASAP. it would have to be cheaper than 20 BILLION development and 900 MILLION a pop. then SLS would lie in its shallow grave. but not until then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2021 10:36:45 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: no no. hes got a point. No one can touch spacex's value. the issue is starship will not be human rated for a while and spacex wont really be developing any other capability for a while. SLS as a human rated Super Heavy is going to be a capability that we havent had for like 45 years. SLS will literally have value to launch interplanetary ORION and will be a monopoly for a while. So i believe SLS is valuable until its capability are repeated by like literally anyone. IF i was blue origin i would be making a ORION knockoff ASAP. it would have to be cheaper than 20 BILLION development and 900 MILLION a pop. then SLS would lie in its shallow grave. but not until then. SLS is valuable because it would still be redundant dissimilar architecture that can throw well over 100 tons to LEO. 1b will be capable of well over 130 tons to LEO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2021 10:42:07 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SLS is valuable because it would still be redundant dissimilar architecture that can throw well over 100 tons to LEO. 1b will be capable of well over 130 tons to LEO. That redundancy isnt worth the $$$ For the ~$2b per year you'd spend on SLS that's enough to launch 30,000 tonnes into orbit with Starship. That's not a typo... literally 4 Virginia nuclear subs worth of payload. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2021 10:55:48 AM EDT
[#11]
Bezos be all like "No, NASA, no! Pleez make the moon wimminz ride my space dildo! It will help me finally finish Leather Goddesses of Phobos: The Motion Picture!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2021 11:19:39 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That redundancy isnt worth the $$$ For the ~$2b per year you'd spend on SLS that's enough to launch 30,000 tonnes into orbit with Starship. That's not a typo... literally 4 Virginia nuclear subs worth of payload. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: SLS is valuable because it would still be redundant dissimilar architecture that can throw well over 100 tons to LEO. 1b will be capable of well over 130 tons to LEO. That redundancy isnt worth the $$$ For the ~$2b per year you'd spend on SLS that's enough to launch 30,000 tonnes into orbit with Starship. That's not a typo... literally 4 Virginia nuclear subs worth of payload. I'm with an old school space company right now and they are just absolutely struggling to "get" how cheap the new space stuff is using mostly automotive cots components. Longevity and reliability isn't as much of a factor when you're launching dozens, hundreds, or thousands of something to LEO but they have to de-orbit in 5-7 years and you've built failure into your constellation. We're off by as much as 10x on price for certain things lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2021 11:47:53 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep. SLS is a terrible business case for near-earth payload launch. But that wasn't really the point of it anyway. I'm with an old school space company right now and they are just absolutely struggling to "get" how cheap the new space stuff is using mostly automotive cots components. Longevity and reliability isn't as much of a factor when you're launching dozens, hundreds, or thousands of something to LEO but they have to de-orbit in 5-7 years and you've built failure into your constellation. We're off by as much as 10x on price for certain things lol. Would you rather spend 6 months in an Orion capsule or 6 months in a Starship? Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2021 11:57:00 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SLS is also shitty for anything NOT "near earth". Would you rather spend 6 months in an Orion capsule or 6 months in a Starship? Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2021 11:57:02 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SLS is also shitty for anything NOT "near earth". Would you rather spend 6 months in an Orion capsule or 6 months in a Starship? Nick Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yep. SLS is a terrible business case for near-earth payload launch. But that wasn't really the point of it anyway. I'm with an old school space company right now and they are just absolutely struggling to "get" how cheap the new space stuff is using mostly automotive cots components. Longevity and reliability isn't as much of a factor when you're launching dozens, hundreds, or thousands of something to LEO but they have to de-orbit in 5-7 years and you've built failure into your constellation. We're off by as much as 10x on price for certain things lol. Would you rather spend 6 months in an Orion capsule or 6 months in a Starship? Nick Which one has more closets for a discrete space jack or do I have to do it in where some NASA dork can watch me without paying tree fiddy a month for my OnlyFans? Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2021 3:19:51 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the virtue signaling of having the FIRST woman on the moon means anything, make it an all female crew. As sad as it sounds, pitching it that way was probably the best way to make sure it happens 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2021 1:39:30 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: no no. hes got a point. No one can touch spacex's value. the issue is starship will not be human rated for a while and spacex wont really be developing any other capability for a while. SLS as a human rated Super Heavy is going to be a capability that we havent had for like 45 years. SLS will literally have value to launch interplanetary ORION and will be a monopoly for a while. So i believe SLS is valuable until its capability are repeated by like literally anyone. IF i was blue origin i would be making a ORION knockoff ASAP. it would have to be cheaper than 20 BILLION development and 900 MILLION a pop. then SLS would lie in its shallow grave. but not until then. This is so stupid that you should feel embarrassed. Nothing you say at this point has any worth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2021 12:01:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is so stupid that you should feel embarrassed. Nothing you say at this point has any worth. Why? You think they should just copy starship? I get it. But starship is so much long game. It will need to be an order of magnitude more reliable that falcon 9 booster landings before humans can land on earth on it. That might be a decade out. Or never. We need a non 900M SLS +900M Orion per launch option for interplanetary travel. Starship can be the ship and the lander but we have zero idea when we will replace capsule re entry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2021 9:39:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why? You think they should just copy starship? I get it. But starship is so much long game. It will need to be an order of magnitude more reliable that falcon 9 booster landings before humans can land on earth on it. That might be a decade out. Or never. We need a non 900M SLS +900M Orion per launch option for interplanetary travel. Starship can be the ship and the lander but we have zero idea when we will replace capsule re entry. Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2021 9:45:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Though Falcon Heavy was in the super heavy category?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2021 9:49:04 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Though Falcon Heavy was in the super heavy category? If it is reusable - meaning you are landing and recovering the boosters - then it is heavy lift. If you are willing to expend the boosters, then it is super heavy lift ... but the customer is obviously going to pay a lot more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2021 9:53:49 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it is reusable - meaning you are landing and recovering the boosters - then it is heavy lift. If you are willing to expend the boosters, then it is super heavy lift ... but the customer is obviously going to pay a lot more. Think the fully expendable falcon heavy is going for around $150 million per launch.. Somewhere around the cost of a single SLS engine.................... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2021 11:27:16 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it is reusable - meaning you are landing and recovering the boosters - then it is heavy lift. If you are willing to expend the boosters, then it is super heavy lift ... but the customer is obviously going to pay a lot more. But if I understand. Kerosene no good for longer missions in space. And the fairing size is teeny Tiny for falcon heavy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2021 11:57:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But if I understand. Kerosene no good for longer missions in space. And the fairing size is teeny Tiny for falcon heavy. Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don’t know about fairing size. Was commenting on “SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV.” In your OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 9:42:48 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think you actually get it. For interplanetary, you absolutely cannot use Orion or any similar size. For multiple months travel time, it is TOO SMALL. Nick Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why? You think they should just copy starship? I get it. But starship is so much long game. It will need to be an order of magnitude more reliable that falcon 9 booster landings before humans can land on earth on it. That might be a decade out. Or never. We need a non 900M SLS +900M Orion per launch option for interplanetary travel. Starship can be the ship and the lander but we have zero idea when we will replace capsule re entry. Nick I think I understand what yobro is saying or at least the intent was possibly that using a capsule for the purpose of getting up and down to any interplanetary support vehicle? Orion capsule isn't designed for a sole trip anywhere except for the Moon. It's free flight capability is IIRC around 2 weeks maybe a little longer. Any Mars mission or long duration talk has always been coupled with a form of a gateway type system. Starship HLS free flight capability is unknown except for it will be covered with solar panels for power generation. With that necessity it isn't coming back down to Earth. There really is no one and done vehicle at all with the free flight endurance and necessary subsystems to get to Mars, up and down. Never mind the estimated 2000 cubic feet of cargo volume for food alone on a to Mars and back flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 9:50:42 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SLS is also shitty for anything NOT "near earth". Would you rather spend 6 months in an Orion capsule or 6 months in a Starship? Nick you actually think the orion capsule would be the MTV.. :lol: |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 9:53:19 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don't know about fairing size. Was commenting on "SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV." In your OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 9:54:01 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don’t know about fairing size. Was commenting on “SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV.” In your OP. Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a ‘come on dude’ because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this  . While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume.FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 9:55:48 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think I understand what yobro is saying or at least the intent was possibly that using a capsule for the purpose of getting up and down to any interplanetary support vehicle? Orion capsule isn't designed for a sole trip anywhere except for the Moon. It's free flight capability is IIRC around 2 weeks maybe a little longer. Any Mars mission or long duration talk has always been coupled with a form of a gateway type system. Starship HLS free flight capability is unknown except for it will be covered with solar panels for power generation. With that necessity it isn't coming back down to Earth. There really is no one and done vehicle at all with the free flight endurance and necessary subsystems to get to Mars, up and down. Never mind the estimated 2000 cubic feet of cargo volume for food alone on a to Mars and back flight. NASA restarted the NERVA program which means they intend to design and build a nuclear powered Mars transfer vehicle in orbit with SLS. That sort of MTV would blow Starship out of the water for a LOT of reasons. Main among them being the 1000+ ISP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 9:57:20 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a 'come on dude' because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this . While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume.FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 10:03:45 AM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 10:25:28 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But if I understand. Kerosene no good for longer missions in space. And the fairing size is teeny Tiny for falcon heavy. There's nothing inherently wrong with using kerolox for long duration missions. The Russian DM upper stages use kerolox and they are long duration.  It was originally designed for use on the N-1 moon rocket, but eventually found use on the Proton and Zenit rockets. Proton uses mostly the hypergolic "Breeze" (Briz-M) upper stage now though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blok_D Of course, using kerolox though you get the problems you have with storing any cryogenics. Falcon Heavy is also getting a larger PLF as part of the NSSL deal, but yes it's still not nearly as large as the 8-9m PLF on SLS. New Glenn will have a 7m PLF, and Tory Bruno has also said that Vulcan could fit a 7m+ PLF if it needed to as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 11:14:31 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a ‘come on dude’ because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this . While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume.FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don’t know about fairing size. Was commenting on “SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV.” In your OP. Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a ‘come on dude’ because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this . While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume.FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) The “problem” with SLS is not the tonnage, it’s the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost.  But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 11:20:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NASA restarted the NERVA program which means they intend to design and build a nuclear powered Mars transfer vehicle in orbit with SLS. That sort of MTV would blow Starship out of the water for a LOT of reasons. Main among them being the 1000+ ISP. I believe that was a Trump administration act, to fund a bit of research to look into it again. As much as I hate to say it - because I think it’s a great idea, and should never have been abandoned - I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that it will be going exactly nowhere, and the funding will NOT be renewed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 11:30:03 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The “problem” with SLS is not the tonnage, it’s the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. Our whole civilization seems to be either at or approaching a variety of weird scientific, engineering and most importantly, bureaucratic friction points. The bureaucrats are irrelevant and they know it. But they are unwilling to cede power. There are forces... Bubbling just under the surface of incredible strength. What I generally refer to as positive destructive forces. The longer the bureaucrats keep these forces clamped down the more they ferment into negative destructive forces. Which is probably the bureaucrats plan. To make people so utterly terrified of change that they will stick with the cozy old way of doing things. Even if it is... Quite literally killing people. A few more things need to fall into place. Perhaps this recent oil company cyberattack might be the last piece to fall into place? We already have alternate currencies in the form of crypto currencies. As these forces are let loose the old establishments will become more irrelevant and prone to violence. As to what effect this will have on SLS? Well, let's say that our civilization goes into a depression. If there is that kind of serious economic downturn. Even with available components left over from the Shuttle program. Will they be able to fly this absurdly expensive rocket if millions of people can't scrape together enough money for food? We talk about SpaceX making SLS obsolete. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the "filthy poors" decommissioning SLS. They have wanted to dismember NASA and give that money to themsel... Oops! I mean the poor and homeless for decades.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 11:32:40 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The "problem" with SLS is not the tonnage, it's the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don't know about fairing size. Was commenting on "SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV." In your OP. Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a 'come on dude' because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this . While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume.FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) The "problem" with SLS is not the tonnage, it's the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. Except when would you actually get that 90T on one SLS into orbit? Heavy's already had 3 successful launches and have more manifested. You'd be better off launching on two heavies with a split payload and pocketing the difference and more importantly the time. SLS will *hopefully* get it's first unmanned launch later this year with manned launches in 23/24. By that time Musk would have re-designed falcon heavy to fly around in space to teabag the SLS just to be a smug prick. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 11:37:31 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe that was a Trump administration act, to fund a bit of research to look into it again. As much as I hate to say it - because I think it's a great idea, and should never have been abandoned - I think it's a pretty safe assumption that it will be going exactly nowhere, and the funding will NOT be renewed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: NASA restarted the NERVA program which means they intend to design and build a nuclear powered Mars transfer vehicle in orbit with SLS. That sort of MTV would blow Starship out of the water for a LOT of reasons. Main among them being the 1000+ ISP. I believe that was a Trump administration act, to fund a bit of research to look into it again. As much as I hate to say it - because I think it's a great idea, and should never have been abandoned - I think it's a pretty safe assumption that it will be going exactly nowhere, and the funding will NOT be renewed. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/g-28367i_prdlabs.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 11:41:52 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except when would you actually get that 90T on one SLS into orbit? Heavy's already had 3 successful launches and have more manifested. You'd be better off launching on two heavies with a split payload and pocketing the difference and more importantly the time. SLS will *hopefully* get it's first unmanned launch later this year with manned launches in 23/24. By that time Musk would have re-designed falcon heavy to fly around in space to teabag the SLS just to be a smug prick. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don't know about fairing size. Was commenting on "SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV." In your OP. Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a 'come on dude' because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this . While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume.FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) The "problem" with SLS is not the tonnage, it's the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. Except when would you actually get that 90T on one SLS into orbit? Heavy's already had 3 successful launches and have more manifested. You'd be better off launching on two heavies with a split payload and pocketing the difference and more importantly the time. SLS will *hopefully* get it's first unmanned launch later this year with manned launches in 23/24. By that time Musk would have re-designed falcon heavy to fly around in space to teabag the SLS just to be a smug prick. Sure, but that’s why I made it “one single item” that cannot be broken into several pieces. I am certain that SLS can do what it says it can do. After all, it’s using proven technology, and there’s no real uncertainty involved in anything it is intended to do. Literally all it needs is money to burn. So if we suddenly had an Armageddon (movie) type scenario, and needed to get a 90-ton drilling rig into space within a month ... SLS is the only existing system that could do it right now.  Of course, with the pace of Starship rapid prototyping and development, who knows how quick SpaceX might get there? ... and who knows what unexpected delays SLS might run into? So I definitely acknowledge your point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 12:19:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure, but that’s why I made it “one single item” that cannot be broken into several pieces. I am certain that SLS can do what it says it can do. After all, it’s using proven technology, and there’s no real uncertainty involved in anything it is intended to do. Literally all it needs is money to burn. So if we suddenly had an Armageddon (movie) type scenario, and needed to get a 90-ton drilling rig into space within a month ... SLS is the only existing system that could do it right now. Of course, with the pace of Starship rapid prototyping and development, who knows how quick SpaceX might get there? ... and who knows what unexpected delays SLS might run into? So I definitely acknowledge your point. that's granted when the Ares, now SLS was first conceived, it was a good, maybe great idea as a space shuttle replacement, especially before before spacex was a known contender. However with all the delays and decades taken, SLS's window of usefulness has become very short, now its unclear how much viable time it has, a couple of years at most and If SLS experiences more significant delays, it will be retired after only a few long overdue scheduled launches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 2:25:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a ‘come on dude’ because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this . While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume.FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) I didn’t write the criteria for super heavy classification. But FH meets that criteria and has flown. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 2:28:46 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe that was a Trump administration act, to fund a bit of research to look into it again. As much as I hate to say it - because I think it's a great idea, and should never have been abandoned - I think it's a pretty safe assumption that it will be going exactly nowhere, and the funding will NOT be renewed. Democrats want NERVA so badly they wrote it into HR5666. So yea.. it likely will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 2:31:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The "problem" with SLS is not the tonnage, it's the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. 2 billion if you include the launch vehicle, payload, fuel, crawler time, VAB including the bays used by other companies, the landscaping crew, the janitors, and on and on and on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 2:33:52 PM EDT
[#43]
SpaceX has come out and stated Super Heavy boosters will be expendable until they get the catch system working.
30 raptors dumped into the ocean every launch until they get everything working lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 2:37:06 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SpaceX has come out and stated Super Heavy boosters will be expendable until they get the catch system working. 30 raptors dumped into the ocean every launch until they get everything working lolSpaceX did blow up a LOT of Falcon 9 cores before they successfully landed one. ... Fortunately, 30 Raptors cost about half of what ONE of the four RS-25 engines on the SLS cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 3:50:16 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SpaceX did blow up a LOT of Falcon 9 cores before they successfully landed one. ... Fortunately, 30 Raptors cost about half of what ONE of the four RS-25 engines on the SLS cost. Thats at the most what they cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 3:51:03 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SpaceX has come out and stated Super Heavy boosters will be expendable until they get the catch system working. 30 raptors dumped into the ocean every launch until they get everything working lolWHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT? Never heard that. I must listen to two hours a day of spacex shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 4:11:10 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thats at the most what they cost. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: SpaceX did blow up a LOT of Falcon 9 cores before they successfully landed one. ... Fortunately, 30 Raptors cost about half of what ONE of the four RS-25 engines on the SLS cost. Thats at the most what they cost. The RS-25's, or the Raptors? The total cost to NASA for the 24 RS-25 engines is at around $3.5 billion dollars, as far as I can tell - combining the contracts to refurbish existing ones, and the contract to build new ones. That's almost $150 million per engine. It's unclear exactly how much Raptor engines cost to build. SpaceX claims that they are manufacturing them at a cost of about $1 million each these days. Keep in mind that the engine is literally still in development, and so the more they produce and the more they nail down the design, the cheaper they will be to build. SpaceX claims that once the design is completely finalized and production REALLY ramps up, they will be making them for about $250K per engine ... but that's obviously still a ways in the future. Personally, I think it's reasonable to consider their cost per engine to be about $2 million - twice of what they are claiming. So, if Raptors cost $2 million per engine - losing 30 of them (i.e. $60 million) would still less than half the cost of one single RS-25 engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 4:27:14 PM EDT
[#48]
They are not going to throw that many raptors away.
They will take the performance hit on the early flights and add the landing gear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 4:28:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The RS-25's, or the Raptors? The total cost to NASA for the 24 RS-25 engines is at around $3.5 billion dollars, as far as I can tell - combining the contracts to refurbish existing ones, and the contract to build new ones. That's almost $150 million per engine. It's unclear exactly how much Raptor engines cost to build. SpaceX claims that they are manufacturing them at a cost of about $1 million each these days. Keep in mind that the engine is literally still in development, and so the more they produce and the more they nail down the design, the cheaper they will be to build. SpaceX claims that once the design is completely finalized and production REALLY ramps up, they will be making them for about $250K per engine ... but that's obviously still a ways in the future. Personally, I think it's reasonable to consider their cost per engine to be about $2 million - twice of what they are claiming. So, if Raptors cost $2 million per engine - losing 30 of them (i.e. $60 million) would still less than half the cost of one single RS-25 engine. Ugh. For the tenth time. Those RS-25s should be in a museum! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 5:53:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The RS-25's, or the Raptors? The total cost to NASA for the 24 RS-25 engines is at around $3.5 billion dollars, as far as I can tell - combining the contracts to refurbish existing ones, and the contract to build new ones. That's almost $150 million per engine. It's unclear exactly how much Raptor engines cost to build. SpaceX claims that they are manufacturing them at a cost of about $1 million each these days. Keep in mind that the engine is literally still in development, and so the more they produce and the more they nail down the design, the cheaper they will be to build. SpaceX claims that once the design is completely finalized and production REALLY ramps up, they will be making them for about $250K per engine ... but that's obviously still a ways in the future. Personally, I think it's reasonable to consider their cost per engine to be about $2 million - twice of what they are claiming. So, if Raptors cost $2 million per engine - losing 30 of them (i.e. $60 million) would still less than half the cost of one single RS-25 engine. Thanks. I know the cost of the RS25 and the supposed cost of raptor. But the disposable SH booster on Starship? Where is that from.? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File